So, Utah decided to just give the homeless places to live. The results are what anyone with sense, or who has followed the topic would expect: Utah’s Housing First program cost between $10,000 and $12,000 per person, about half of the $20,000 it cost to treat and care for homeless people on the street. Imagine [...]

There are a lot of interesting nuggets in the intertoobz these days. Some of these things go together and show the lengths we will go to delude ourselves or cling to tribal beliefs.

Let’s start with a podcast. So, you’ve given up the Judeo-Christian belief system for God 2.0 or no god at all. Some of us would call this progress. Giving up bronze age superstition and tradition for something more modern and relevant is quite a bold step. So, why are so many of you turning to woo? Woo is defined as “ideas considered irrational or based on extremely flimsy evidence or that appeal to mysterious occult forces or powers”. Woo includes the belief in astrology, auras, energy fields, homeopathy, accupuncture, chiropracty and vaccination phobia. Seth Andrews of the Thinking Atheist interviews various professionals who debunk these woos and tries to explain why otherwise rational people are attracted to them. Let’s put it this way, if you’re into woo, it’s hard to take anything you say seriously. You’d might as well be a nutcase fundy eschatologist. Check out Seth’s recent podcast here.

Jay Ackroyd tries to lead Digby to the light when it comes to Obama’s commitment to a Grand Bargain on Social Security and Medicare. First, go read the piece from Digby where she actually sounds like she’s blown right on past where Conflucians are sitting straight into the arms of the former Democrats who are so angry they’ve started to identify with the Tea Party. Wow. That’s quite a leap. I know the party will reel her back in and, to be honest, we don’t really need more Tea Partiers in Congress, thank you very much. But, yeah, Digby. Jay’s right. The Obama contingent are not liberals. However, Jay is not right that they’re centrists. The Obama contingent is definitely on the right side of center. Nooooo doubt about it. The only way that they are centrists is if you consider moderate republicanism centrist. That would make Bill Clinton a flaming commie. No, no, don’t go there, Jay. We have seen the studies. There’s no way in hell that Bill Clinton is a centrist in the same way that Obama is a “centrist”. The center moved in the past 12 years. You guys have got to accept this because your irrational belief that Clinton is an evil Republican dude compared to Obama, is what got Obama elected in the first place. You’ve been done in by your tribe’s woo. I mean, think about it: your group is asking us to believe that Bill Clinton is, was and always will be more conservative than Barack Obama. Step back and think about that and ask yourselves if that’s rational given everything you now know. If YOU can’t swallow it, why are you asking US to believe it?

As for Digby, I really like her and I’ve found her recent evolution to be promising, if only temporary in the lead up to the election. I expect her to chicken out even though her “Hey! We’re eating grass!” moments are fun to read. There is a place for left of center Democrats who don’t have our minds so wide open that our brains have fallen out. We just need to create it. It probably won’t happen this election cycle unless the Obama half of the party is defeated by the Clinton half of the party. That’s where we are now. You may not think the Clinton half is sufficiently liberal but the American people do. In any case, they’ll drag the party back leftwards like an earthquake in Japan. It could be a true realignment on the way back to sanity. And remember, Wall Street rejected the Clinton half last time. So, you know, how much more proof do you need?? Besides, there is no hope for Howard Dean. Most people don’t know who he is and wouldn’t like him if they did. We need to be realistic and work with what we’ve got. And as far as I can tell, Americans would be ecstatic to return to the Clinton years, even if they were supervised by his wife. A woman in charge would be very good for women in general, wouldn’t you agree? Especially when that woman is a passionate defender of women’s reproductive rights? I mean, can women really trust Obama after they way he dragged his feet on the conscience rule, betrayed us in the healthcare law and kept Plan B behind a counter?

As far as everyone having “skin in the game”, Obama’s term for sacrificing in the upcoming Grand Bargain, um, I’ve seen my industry devastated by Wall Street grasshoppers and I’ve lost a very good living, permanently. So, you know, I’ve already been flayed. Not only that but I’m in the age cohort who has to wait until I’m 67 before I get the Social Security I prepaid for decades. I’m not sacrificing anymore skin. No, do not even ask. Don’t make us come down there to Washington to make your lives miserable. You do not want crowds from the size of my graduating class on the mall. No, you do not. I suggest that Congress go hunt people with an excess of skin, ie wealthy people. Give them a good reason to whine.

The last bit is an interview of Jane Mayer on Fresh Air with Terry Gross entitled “Obama in Impossible Bind Over Donors”. The Impossible Bind is that he wants and needs money from the wealthy and Wall Street but he doesn’t want average voters to know how indebted he is to his big donors so he has to blow the donors off in public. It’s a sad, sad situation. Terry, to her credit, seems to have come around after being such an insufferable Obama fangirl in 2008. Jane Mayer valiantly tries to make Obama look good when it comes to fundraising. You can almost hear Jane pleading with the audience to understand what Obama is up against but I found her extreme earnestness irritating. It’s a cruel world out there. Poor Obama, forced to accept SuperPAC money and trying to make it look like he doesn’t like it. It’s all the fault of the mean Republicans that he’s sucking up all the money he said he didn’t want. And while Romney is appearing at the SuperPAC soirees, Mitt has a deputy actually ask for the money, while Obama goes to the soirees and the money just mysteriously appears for him but he doesn’t suck up to anyone to get it. I find the distinction indistinct.

Oh, but Obama isn’t giving away the Lincoln Bedroom! So, you know, there’s that. And that’s presumably why the donors are complaining. They get nothing from Obama. Not even a tote bag. He won’t even take pictures with his donors so they can use that to name drop. It sounds like Obama got too much of a reputation as a schmoozer in 2008 and he’s desperate to squash that meme this year but that doesn’t mean he’ll be turning the filthy lucre down. He just doesn’t want to have to thank anyone publicly for it.

But the funniest part of the interview is when Mayer is forced to debunk the idea that Obama made the bulk of his campaign money from millions of teensy contributions. I know, you’re probably thinking that small contributions mean less than $100 because that’s what the Obama campaign lead us to believe in 2008. We were all under the impression that millions and millions of working class Joes were mailing $20 to him in gratitude with a little note saying, “Bless you, Barack! Save the Republic. We’ve been waiting all our lives for you!” Right? Intellectually, you know it’s not true because the sheer size of the amount of money he collected, plus all of the contributions from wealthy Wall Street contributors, is public information. But the meme kinda slipped into the chinks of the gray matter and created it’s own woo. It just *had* to be true because so many people repeated it. It’s sort of like that woo we debunked about Obama running a fabulous campaign. Um, no he didn’t, unless you consider gaming the caucuses and paying off the superdelegates and DNC fabulous, and we can prove it but myths die hard.

Anyway, it turns out that the definition of small depends on who is using it. Small donations to you and me would be less than $100. Small donations to the Obama campaign means maxing out at $5000. See the difference? One is $4900 more than the other. What working class stiff has $5000 to stuff into an envelope for a guy who had less than two years of national political experience before he decided to run for president? And inadvertently, Mayer exposes what the Obama campaign thinks of the people who gave less than $5K. They’re not even on the campaign’s radar.

But the final bit of silliness from Mayer is when she contrasts Bill Clinton’s extroversion against Obama’s intellectualism. That’s got to be a first. Whatever you might think of Bill Clinton, making the guy who went to Georgetown, Yale Law School and was a Rhodes Scholar sound like a high school dropout car salesman next to Obama doesn’t really work too well. What she’s really trying to say is that Clinton is a gregarious politician who likes politics and can carry on an intelligent conversation with anyone, even his enemies, but that the Obama contingent doesn’t like politics and getting hands dirty and actually doing the stuff that gets things done. I know that she didn’t mean to say that but that’s essentially what she said. If you were a big money donor, whose campaign would you rather give $5 million to? (George Soros, call me!)

Once the bloom is off of Obama’s rose, you can’t listen to this stuff without laughing at all of the holes in the arguments. The woo is gone.

Body: This paper, or pre-draft, or sketch, or whatever it is, started out with this title: "With The 12-Point Platform, this won't happen: An aristocracy of credentialism in the 20%." But then I realized I'd gotten in deeper than I thought -- one of those posts were the framework and the notes overwhelm the original idea -- and as it tur […]

This is a big bunch of catch-up, here, 'cause it's been a helluva few weeks. Gaius Publius interviewed Alan Grayson on Virtually Speaking, where Grayson discussed "how he 'cracked the nut' that allows him to get progressive legislation passed. Part of his secret - his goal is to be a person who 'gets things done for the progress […]